The Supreme Court on Sept. 9 agreed to expedite review of lower court rulings that struck down most of President Donald Trump’s reciprocal tariffs.

The president has made tariffs the centerpiece of his foreign policy in his second administration, saying they may be used to encourage manufacturing to return to the United States. He has also said that tariffs may help correct what he considers to be unfair trade practices engaged in by countries that export goods to the United States.

A reciprocal tariff is one imposed by one country on imports from another, to match the tariff the other country imposes on the first country’s exports.

The tariffs remain in effect for the time being.

The cases will be heard in the first week of November, the court said in a new order.

The two cases are Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump and V.O.S. Selections Inc. v. United States. The high court consolidated the cases and ordered that they be heard together. No justices dissented. The court did not explain its decision.

In the case of Learning Resources, an Illinois-based maker of educational toys, a federal district court on May 29 granted a preliminary injunction blocking the tariffs.

The district court held that the tariffs were unlawful and that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act that Trump cited in issuing the tariffs does not allow the president “to unilaterally impose, revoke, pause, reinstate, and adjust tariffs to reorder the global economy.” The tariffs present “an existential threat” to the company’s business, the court also determined.

On June 3, the district court stayed its ruling to give the government an opportunity to appeal. On July 1, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit stated that it would hear oral arguments in the appeal on Sept. 30.

In the case of V.O.S. Selections, a New York-based importer of alcoholic beverages, a divided U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the bulk of Trump’s reciprocal tariffs were unlawful and that the president exceeded his lawful authority when enacting them.

The U.S. Court of International Trade previously held that the president improperly used his emergency powers to enact the tariffs.

The Federal Circuit Court majority similarly found that the president went beyond his authority when he invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

“The statute bestows significant authority on the President to undertake a number of actions in response to a declared national emergency, but none of these actions explicitly include the power to impose tariffs, duties, or the like, or the power to tax,” the circuit court said.

The court also stated that it seems “unlikely that Congress intended, in enacting [the International Emergency Economic Powers Act], to depart from its past practice and grant the President unlimited authority to impose tariffs.”

“The statute neither mentions tariffs (or any of its synonyms) nor has procedural safeguards that contain clear limits on the President’s power to impose tariffs,” the court said.

On Sept. 2, Trump told reporters that he hoped the Supreme Court would uphold the tariffs.

“It’s a very important decision, and frankly, if they make the wrong decision, it would be a devastation for our country,” he said.

“Without the tariffs, this country is in serious, serious trouble. We’ve taken in almost $17 trillion of investment [which] is coming in. Most of it is coming because of tariffs.”

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said on Sept. 7 that the Department of the Treasury will be forced to issue tariff-related rebates if the Supreme Court upholds a lower court order that blocked a large portion of the tariffs issued by the Trump administration earlier this year.

“We would have to give a refund on about half the tariffs, which would be terrible for the Treasury,” Bessent told NBC News’s “Meet the Press,” meaning that it would represent a loss in federal revenue.

“If the court says it, we’d have to do it,” he said, noting that the Trump administration is confident that it will win the case before the Supreme Court.

Bessent said there could be “other avenues” to imposing tariffs if the Supreme Court rules against those duties, although he did not give details about what they are. However, he said, those maneuvers would diminish the authority of the Trump administration.

Jack Phillips contributed to this report.

This article by Matthew Vadum appeared Sept. 9, 2025, in The Epoch Times.